The American strategy in Eurasia

[Theobald]

The American strategy in Eurasia
and the consequences of the war in Kosovo

By Alexandre del Valle

The American strategy in Eurasia* and the consequences of the war in Kosovo

Summary

- Introduction
- A total strategy
- The consolidation of the dependence of the "soft zones" and the containement of "the rigid zones"
- The domination of Eurasia
- From the "containment" against the communist block to the "neo-containment" against the orthodox block
- The real military purposes and the strategic motivations of the war in Kosovo
- "Neo-containment" to a "new Cold War" ?
- "The right of interference" and "the war in Kosovo" : the military factor and chain destabilization
- New NATO strategic concept : to allow to Washington to interfere everywhere and anytime without ONU mandate
- New American antimissile project : global superiority and the relaunch of the armaments drive
- Acceptance of the Turkish nominee in the European Union : a geopolitical nonsense or an American request ?
- "War of representations", strategic paramount purposes
- The "Big Europe" from Portugal to Russia : the unique possible answer for American hegemonic strategy

Extracts

The geopolitical world situation after the Cold War has generated simultaneously a unipolar and multipolar world (Russia and USA are not more the two unique authorities to have enter the lists), the superiority of the American "Hyperforce" being, at present, without equal. Therefore, strategies beside the Atlantic Ocean know perfectly that this " unipolarity ", this hegemonic global position that they keep, permitted by the ruin of the soviet - communist and Russia threat, is momentary. Besides the American geopolitics directions should take into account some phenomena also consecutive to the Soviet Union falling and which Washington can hardly stop: general renovation of the Islam; reappearance or emerging of geopolitical and civilized Blocks "obstinate" or / and menacing (Russia, China, India, the Islamic world) risking to question one day American hegemony and working for the construction of a multipolar world; and, at last, the economic war between various geopolitical populations, first of all between America and Asia, and mainly between America and Europe. It is in this global context, that they decide to relocate the occidental - American air campaign " Joint Operation" begun against Serbia between March and in June 1999, the operation which exceeded infinitely the unique lot of Kosovo, as well as the desire of the new American Administration to begin again the armaments drive with the anti-missile project National Missile Defense (NMD).

(...)

If USA manages to declare in a unilateral order wars almost everywhere undergoing not more then a ridiculous abstention or Chinese veto in UN or other gesticulation also symbolical as hopeless of Moscow origin,it is certainly because they are the most forceful in all the principal domains (economy, political, armed forces, technologies, and communication), but also because they: use at first non-military means characteristic to the modern war or " total war ". It integrates the mass media" or "informational" war- doubled by a " war of representations" - economic and technological war and mainly psychological war. Having undergone some military, political and economic failures here and there, in Vietnam, in Cuba, more recently in Somalia, and in a way in Iran or in Lebanon, then in Japan vis-a-vis to "the economic attack " during the years 70-80, USA managed, these ten last years, to conduct a perfect economic restoring, which can serve as a good examplefor the social-democrat Old Europe, and to realize a perfect reconstruction of all their guard system and economic intelligence. The American strategists and chiefs have completely changed the global strategy of their country, become mainly geoeconomic, conducting fusion, regrouping complementary industries, reconciling the political, administrative, economic, industrial, informational and military sectors. The outcome is an economically blossoming more competitive America, but also more offensive, aggressive and more than ever sure of herself even - Samuel Huntington uses the statement "arrogant", in any case, it is less naive and innocent that think the pro-Americans settled down in the Europe and however, for whom " the Americans, which have rescued us twice " - certainly - will be "big children unable to harm voluntary to the interests of their protected and joint Europeans"...

(...)

Schematically, the USA identify the two (or three) geoeconomical and civilised blocks capable to catch them up with the time: Asia (China or / and India) and Europe, in case the European Union would have subites shy attempts of independence or in case if Russia or Germany, even a coalition "anti-hegemonic" (strategic continental axis Paris - Berlin - Moscow), managed to inspect the European population. Therefore, to equalize impressive Asian mass, future " hard zone", and to immortalize the weakness and the strategic division of the Europeans and the Islam - African mass, the USA hope to integrate, under their global leadership, the West, Africa and the Islamic world. Really to support their hegemony on the world, Washington applies a global strategy based on four main strategic regional declinations:

1/ - To keep the North America and the Latin America as a protection against EU and to hinder the formation of independent authorities in the third world

2/ - To hinder the countries from Asia to become superpower capable to challenge the American domination counterbalancing the Asian "hard zone" by the amplification of the American hegemony in the main " soft zones " which are Africa, Europe and Islam.

3/ - to hinder the European " Fundamental-states " (Germany, France and \or Russia) to integrate and emancipate the continental Europe from the American - Atlantic tutelage then to keep the Western and Central Europe and as main bridgehead of United States in Eurasia.

4/ - to strengthen the dependence and the alliance of the Islamic countries to stop the ex shy autonomisation attempts" still pursuing Russia the strategy of containment and the control of the strategic subjects thanking to the Islamic "ram "

(...)

As explains Zbigniew Brzezinski, the main purpose of America is to dominate " /the Eurasia ", spacious territory which goes from the Western Europe to China through Near East and central Asia. Therefore USA consider the ex -USSR ancient muslin petrol and gas colonies as a strategic zone the most significant in the world. Washington should therefore do everything to remain the unique hegemonic power on the Eurasian Continent. The classical geopolitics covet, reminds Brzezinski, that the superiority on the Eurasian Continent is a point of support to " the global domination ". Certainly USA, external power to the Eurasia, - are henceforth the first global authority thanking to its direct presence on the three peripheral zones of the Continent, position enlarging their zone of influence to the States of the" continental hinterland". Nevertheless, for the American strategies, the Eurasia remains the unique theatre on which a potential rival of America could eventually occur.

There is a key to each American geostrategic doctrine, in its "intervention" declinations of Clinton type as in its "isolation" version ", such as represented by the Bush jr. new command. But the isolation/intervention dichotomie denotes a consideration of nuances then a tangible reality because of the planetary "responsiblties" of the "Hyperforce ".

Really, this doctrine of global strategy of the USA is registered (s'inscrit) in Britainnic geopolitical tradition representing evolution of the world as the outcome of rivalry between " continental powers" and " marine powers".